<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stogie Review: Montecristo Vintage 93 Club Cabinet No. 30</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html</link>
	<description>Blowin’  Smoke on Everything Cigars - cigar reviews, news and commentary 7 days a week</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:25:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-51691</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-51691</guid>
		<description>Well I bid on a monti club cabinet #50 and won. I just got the box last night. I opened the box and expected to get an aroma I had gotten from my first box I bought 1 1/2 years ago (I didn&#039;t). I lit one up. It wasn&#039;t what I expected again, It seemd and tasted to moist and damp almost like a wet rag. Some of the flavors and aromas were present but the damp taste out wayed everything. At this point out of ten &amp; ten being the best I would rate it a 4. I am sure with the monti&#039;s sitting in my humidor for a few weeks and months the dampness will be gone and the true monti will emerg. I will write another review in a couple of weeks and let you know how they settled down. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I bid on a monti club cabinet #50 and won. I just got the box last night. I opened the box and expected to get an aroma I had gotten from my first box I bought 1 1/2 years ago (I didn&#039;t). I lit one up. It wasn&#039;t what I expected again, It seemd and tasted to moist and damp almost like a wet rag. Some of the flavors and aromas were present but the damp taste out wayed everything. At this point out of ten &amp; ten being the best I would rate it a 4. I am sure with the monti&#039;s sitting in my humidor for a few weeks and months the dampness will be gone and the true monti will emerg. I will write another review in a couple of weeks and let you know how they settled down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-48287</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-48287</guid>
		<description>I bought a box of the Club Cabinet #50 1 1/2 years ago. I smoked about 1/2 the box right away and absolutley enjoyed every one of them. I left the 2nd half to sit in my humidor until about 1 week ago. I took one out and lit it up. Oh man- (After ageing) it is one of the best out of all the cigars I have smoked. I would have to say it rivels Padron 1964 and some of the Cubans. Now with that said. The company I bought my box from, which is one of the first companies to sell the clubs said that Monticristo would be changing its wrapper but the binder and filler would remain the same. I have not tried the newer clubs, but when I do I hope they are as good and age as the origionals. Oh- one more thing- My clubs had very little veining but everything else mention in the review is correct. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bought a box of the Club Cabinet #50 1 1/2 years ago. I smoked about 1/2 the box right away and absolutley enjoyed every one of them. I left the 2nd half to sit in my humidor until about 1 week ago. I took one out and lit it up. Oh man- (After ageing) it is one of the best out of all the cigars I have smoked. I would have to say it rivels Padron 1964 and some of the Cubans. Now with that said. The company I bought my box from, which is one of the first companies to sell the clubs said that Monticristo would be changing its wrapper but the binder and filler would remain the same. I have not tried the newer clubs, but when I do I hope they are as good and age as the origionals. Oh- one more thing- My clubs had very little veining but everything else mention in the review is correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Z</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-11280</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-11280</guid>
		<description>Not too impressed with this one, after smoking more &quot;economcally friendly&quot; cigars for the past few years. I love full bodied cigars, and this fit that need. Draw seemed too easy after cutting, loose actually, and after 2&quot; burned the taste became foul, like the last 3/4&quot; -1&quot; of any cigar that makes it to that point. I expect a good cigar to taste good at least up to the 2/3rd&#039;s mark, but a Monte should be even better. A dissapointment from JR&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not too impressed with this one, after smoking more &#8220;economcally friendly&#8221; cigars for the past few years. I love full bodied cigars, and this fit that need. Draw seemed too easy after cutting, loose actually, and after 2&#8243; burned the taste became foul, like the last 3/4&#8243; -1&#8243; of any cigar that makes it to that point. I expect a good cigar to taste good at least up to the 2/3rd&#8217;s mark, but a Monte should be even better. A dissapointment from JR&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Stogie Guys &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stogie Reviews</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-674</link>
		<dc:creator>The Stogie Guys &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Stogie Reviews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-674</guid>
		<description>[...] Montecristo Vintage 93 Club Cabinet No. 30 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Montecristo Vintage 93 Club Cabinet No. 30 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-449</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-449</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t Montecristo notorious for charging too much per stick? Even so, I do enjoy them from time to time. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#039;t Montecristo notorious for charging too much per stick? Even so, I do enjoy them from time to time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-448</guid>
		<description>$5-7 a stick isn&#039;t that bad </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>$5-7 a stick isn&#039;t that bad</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Padronnie</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Padronnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-447</guid>
		<description>better be at those prices! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>better be at those prices!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.stogieguys.com/2006/12/stogie-review-montecristo-vintage-93.html/comment-page-1#comment-446</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stogieguys.com/?p=159#comment-446</guid>
		<description>Sounds yummy! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds yummy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

